EDITED: [disagree], he got his start as a painter, his first film work was motion painting, he switched over to digital wholeheartedly over 10 years ago and uses its possibilities all the time. he creates images that other people wouldn't have the imagination to create. sometimes they are ridiculous but this is part of his absurdity. it ties in w the "bad" acting, the artifice, the meta references he does on purpose to make the real and deadly and suspenseful moments all the more real.
sucks that Twin Peaks has to be picked apart by digital effects purists and people that gripe over fps but thats the price we pay for Twin Peaks in 2017. the discerning audience can understand the difference between artistic expression and "poorly done effects". people that want a good serious tv show that satisfies their expectations can look elsewhere. my only question is how did u make it through 2 1/2 seasons of this? honestly its absurd this question continues to even get traction people are missing the point. may as well complain Picasso's painting don't look realistic and thus he's shitty at his craft
Wow, this edit. One step forward, two steps back. I don't know if I should reply to this, but here goes...
Nah, it's not "total bullshit" and I actually do know what I'm talking about. Being a painter doesn't automatically make him
technically proficient (I made that distinction for a reason, because I'm talking about mixing his art with photography).
If this was Picasso, that would be a different story because that man was a skilled traditional painter before he started reinventing himself.
I'd be willing to bet that a lot of what you assume to be Lynch's intent is actually an unfortunate side effect of having to work around the production's limitations, even with its budget and a miraculously patient network.
It would be naive to claim that everything turned out as intended, when we've already seen a troubling number of instances where Lynch had to resort to
manufacturing shots by reversing or slowing down previously used footage.
I also find it hard to believe that Lynch would choose those lousy shots of painted-on gore or poorly-inserted signs with comical drop shadows if he (or the production's schedule) could afford real, well-sculpted props.
This isn't some deeply personal expression of an individual's artistic expression. It's a large TV production and a collaboration with other artists, including at least one visual effects studio. It's also a continuation of Twin Peaks, a series which until now used much more conventionally attractive visuals (and whenever it didn't, those effects stood out). It would be a different story if Leland floating in the red room was a cardboard cut-out, but since he wasn't I don't think it's unreasonable to hope that a new David Lynch film would look as good as they used to.
It's not like his pre-Inland Empire movies were soulless monstrosities ruined by soulless special effects purists... or were they? Oh boy.
